Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7
case 1:07-cv-00323-JVB-RBC document 7 filed 12/17/2007 page 1 of 3
HERCULES MACHINERY )
CORPORATION, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:07-CV-323
)
MILLCREEK, INC., and )
MICHAEL MYERS, )
)
Defendants. )
This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based
on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) The Notice of Removal
alleges that Defendant Michael Myers is a resident of Ohio, and that Defendant Millcreek, Inc.,
is a “corporation incorporated in the State of Ohio with its principal place of business located in
the State of Ohio.” (Notice of Removal ¶ 2.) The Notice of Removal also alleges that Plaintiff
Hercules Machinery Corporation, Inc., is “a corporation of the State of Indiana[,]” and the
Complaint states that “Hercules is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in
matters.”1 Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining
1
For purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, each party’s citizenship must be articulated as of “the
time of the filing of the complaint,” rather than the date the claims are alleged to have arisen or some other time
material to the lawsuit. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
Moreover, “[a]llegations of federal subject matter jurisdiction may not be made on the basis of information
and belief, only personal knowledge.” Yount v. Shashek, No. Civ. 06-753-GPM, 2006 WL 4017975, at *10 n.1 (S.D.
Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (citing Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir. 1992));
Dockets.Justia.com
case 1:07-cv-00323-JVB-RBC document 7 filed 12/17/2007 page 2 of 3
that statements concerning a party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It is well-settled that when the parties
allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998,
1000 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see generally Smoot v.
Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, the Court must be advised of each party’s citizenship, not residency. As to
Defendant Michael Myers, “[f]or natural persons, state citizenship is determined by one’s
domicile.” Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Am.’s Best Inns, Inc.,
980 F.2d at 1074 (“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). The Notice of
citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and of the state in which they have their
principal place of business.” N. Trust Co. v. Bunge Corp., 899 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1990)
(emphasis added); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). Thus, the Court must be apprised of both facts
with respect to Plaintiff Hercules Machinery Corporation, Inc. While the Complaint and Notice
of Removal identify the Plaintiff’s principal place of business and state that it is an Indiana
corporation, neither clearly specifies the state in which the Plaintiff is incorporated.
Ferolie Corp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, No. 04 C 5425, 2004 WL 2433114, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004);
Hayes v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 02 C 9106, 2003 WL 187411, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2003); Multi-M
Int’l, Inc., 142 F.R.D. at 152.
2
case 1:07-cv-00323-JVB-RBC document 7 filed 12/17/2007 page 3 of 3
Notice of Removal as to the citizenship of Plaintiff Hercules Machinery Corporation, Inc., and
SO ORDERED.